Few eras in American history have produced more “movements” than the 1960s and 1970s, including those committed to protecting the environment, and those crusading to shield consumers from corporations that seemed to put profits ahead of their customers’ well-being. A popular saying of the time was, “As General Motors goes, so goes the nation,” meaning anything that threatened GM—like political activism and the safety regulations it spawned—was basically un-American.

Still, the torch was passed to a new generation, one that did eventually cut its hair, get a job and prove to
be breathtakingly good at making money. Only, there was a twist to that goal, which posed the question:

Is it possible to make money as a company or an investor and at the same time be environmentally, socially and corporately responsible?

This was a radical idea for a time when the bottom line still reigned supreme. But the idea took root, primarily among investors who employed a negative screen: Do not invest in a specific list of offending companies or categories: alcohol, tobacco, oil and gas, gambling, weapons or firms that are blatant polluters and/or exploiters of labor.

This exclusionary approach came to be called socially responsible investing, or SRI. Since many of the stocks SRI investors loathed made their holders lots and lots of money, the conventional wisdom was that SRI investors had to forego some returns to follow their moral compass. But, then, a little over a decade ago, a new movement appeared.

In the early 2000s, corporations and investors awoke to the fact that being responsible was, in fact, good for business. This new sensibility caused a disruption in the corporate world, which changed societal thinking and policies, and produced countless new opportunities for SRI investors. This new standard came to be known by three letters: ESG, standing for the environmental, social and governance. Companies on board with ESG:

• Committed to a better society through social justice, embracing diversity in their workforce and avoiding countries that allow slavery, child labor and life-threatening working conditions

• Monitored the governance of their corporate structures, allowing zero tolerance for practices like bribery, corruption and inappropriate political lobbying and donations

En route, these companies discovered that good governance is good for business. For example, applying ESG principles filters out risks that could lead to negative publicity, and negatively affect a company’s valuation. One could make the argument, that companies following a sustainability-based approach are likely to be more profitable over time, and deliver better shareholder returns.

Today, given the much broader universe of investment vehicles, including mutual funds and ETFs focused on this space, investors no longer have to make a binary choice. The new ESG sensibility has produced a near-limitless list of SRI opportunities, including impact-first investments that address specific social or environmental concerns using market-based solutions.

As a firm, we believe that the focus and client demand for ESG capabilities will only continue to grow in importance. We have dedicated resources to researching and building portfolios that allow our clients to express specific or broad themes that they view as important in this area.

Not surprisingly, ESG investing has grown by more than 97 percent globally in the past 20 years. In dollar value, the number has gone from tens of billions to trillions, and the number of investment funds has increased from tens to thousands1. You might say that ESG has taken SRI investing from exclusionary to inclusionary, to a paradigm of active engagement rather than retreat.

1 Forbes.com: In ESG We Trust.

Registered Representative / Securities o ered through Signator Investors, Inc., Member FINRA, SIPC. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 712-2323. SEIA, LLC and its investment advisory services are o ered indepen- dent of Signator Investors, Inc. and any subsidiaries or a liates. This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as individual investment advice or as a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Investing involves risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Paul Taghibagi, Michael Macauley, Eugene Lev and John Williams—based in Century City, Calif.— focus on delivering sophisticated, unbiased financial advice and a high touch experience. Client relationships often span multiple generations. Asset management is one of several mission critical areas;

Disclaimer: Worth magazine is a financial publisher and does not recommend or endorse investment, legal, insurance or tax advisors. The listing of any firm in the 2018 Worth® Leading AdvisorsTM Program does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement by Worth magazine of any such firm and is not based upon Worth magazine’s experience with, or prior dealings with, any advisor. The information presented for each advisor, including but not limited to any related profile, statistical data, presentation, report, commentary, recommendation or strategy, has been provided by such advisor without review or independent verification by Worth magazine. Any such information is the sole responsibility of the advisor. Worth magazine makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of such information, assumes no liability for any inaccuracies or omissions therein and disclaims responsibility for the suitability of any particular investment recommendation or strategy for any person. Nothing contained in Worth magazine constitutes or should be construed as any form of investment, legal, insurance or tax advice or as a recommendation to buy, sell, hold or trade any securities, financial instruments or assets. Readers are advised to consult their legal, financial, insurance and tax advisors prior to making any investment or pursuing any investment strategy. Past, model or hypothetical performance is not indicative of future results.